ping

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool verifies the environment and optionally the API, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'verifies' entails (e.g., returns status codes, error messages), whether it's safe or has side effects, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves key operational details unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and parameter usage with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral context. For a health check tool, more information on expected outputs or failure modes would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose: 'Set check_api=1 to call the API.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying that the parameter is optional (since required parameters are 0) and triggers an API check. However, it doesn't detail other possible values or effects, so it's not a full 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Health check. Verifies env and optionally the Storyblok API.' It specifies the verb ('verifies') and the resources (environment and API), making it distinct from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations on assets, stories, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other diagnostic tools (none are listed among siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating 'Set check_api=1 to call the API,' which suggests this tool is for verifying system health, with an optional API check. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for troubleshooting vs. regular monitoring) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks detailed exclusions or comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.